Film fogged going through airport security.

[analoguey]

Yes, that is exactly what I said. :confused: The generic and more accurate name for that process/technology is "explosives trace detection" (often shortened to just 'trace detection') rather than "hand-held magic wand gadget". Trace detection senses trace amounts of a chemical indicator of explosive materials. It's like the difference between the words "urinate" and "pee". Both really mean the same thing but one is more ...

You referred to swabbing (see below), which isnt what's done. Hence my explanation of the hand-held gadget, which doesnt require additional machinery.

Difference between that and what you described is vast and not as simple as you make it out - more so as this is for the information of other travellers and photographers.

And I wasnt calling it magic wand trace detector/ hand-held gadget mind you, I could have as well called his action similar to using a toothbrush on the rolls, but that would have been...less useful a simile. Please dont attribute words I havent used, to me.

Hand inspection involves visual inspection plus trace detection - which is wiping with a swab and puttin swab in a machine to measure trace amounts of "bad stuff".

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[BrianShaw]

You referred to swabbing (see below), which isnt what's done. Hence my explanation of the hand-held gadget, which doesnt require additional machinery.

It (explosive trace detection) is done both ways. Depends on which tool they are using. There are several different tools in the marketplace. Some are swab-based collection, and others are sniffer-based. So you are correct that I only descibed one collection system - that which is most common in the U.S. airports for what is generally considered "secondary screening" - carry-on goods that are suspect, randomly chosen, or requested and granted a 'hand inspection'. Mea culpa.

 

[BrianShaw]

... And I wasnt calling it magic wand trace detector/ hand-held gadget mind you, I could have as well called his action similar to using a toothbrush on the rolls, but that would have been...less useful a simile. Please dont attribute words I havent used, to me.

... and if I offended you for your choice of words, I apologize. That was not my intent. I was just quoting words you actually wrote without intending to ascribe any possible underlaying implications. My intent was to provide "proper" verbiage that would allow anyone interested in additional information some search terms that could be used. Mea maxima culpa.

 

[trendland]

From personal experience I think it's a little bit of both, I don't know if maybe it's the way the x-rays go through the camera body itself that accentuate the fog, or if the metal in the camera make them want to examine it further, but in 2010 on my Kodachrome adventure, I went through an airport where they just insisted that they send my camera through the x-ray machine, everyone else that I had been through understood that the film was in the camera and you couldn't take the lens off or open the back and look at it all without exposing the film, but these people didn't and apparently I looked suspicious so they wouldn't hand inspect the camera and send it through, well there was this really heavy banding with all of the images in that roll, it's the only roll out of the, I think 75 rolls, that had any issues, and the only one to go through X-Ray.

This was ASA64 film... This was a "modern" x-ray machine in 2010 at the Key West airport in Florida, small but not exactly backwoods that they would have an older machine.

So I always tell them that the film is 3200 speed film no matter what it actually is and make them hand inspect it, and I always make sure I've used up the roll of film before flying out.

What a waste... They were great shots too...

Interesting facts - thats not in the near what I supposed by reading this older tweed now at the first time.

Short before the moment to believe I
am completely wrong with my own
cogitations. ??????

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Old thread but....If there are parallel bands of increased density on the film, it surely was damaged by X-rays.

 

[JPJackson]

Old thread but....If there are parallel bands of increased density on the film, it surely was damaged by X-rays.

I received 20 sheets of 14x17 film from Europe that definitely have those symptoms! Pretty disappointing after cutting them down for 717 work

 

[benjiboy]

Last January I went through security at Seattle/Tacoma airport. I planned to purchase my film at my destination, expose it, then mail it back home, thus skipping the whole x-ray thing entirely. (This worked fine.)

So I allowed my camera bag to run through the carry-on system. Well, the inspector saw something he didn't like so they took me aside and hand-checked the entire bag. Nothing was found, so they ran it through a second time.

It again came up positive. So I unpacked everything, was of course able to open the camera, and showed them everything. Nothing was found. So they ran it through a third time.

Finally it came up clean and I was allowed to continue. I don't know if they increased the power. But I do know I had just added at least the equivalent of another round trip to the cumulative exposure given to the bag. Maybe more.

So from now on it will always be either shipping new film ahead or buying it there, then shipping it directly to a processor before returning (for color), or back home (for b&w).

Ken

With the current worldwide terrorist threat, why do you think they are so stupid as not to X-ray shipped mail ?

 

[AgX]

I received 20 sheets of 14x17 film from Europe that definitely have those symptoms! Pretty disappointing after cutting them down for 717 work

That is sadly the risk of buying overseas from small retailers.